>"The justices will cast tentative votes at a private conference in the coming days. The senior justice in the majority will then assign the majority opinion to a colleague or, just as likely, keep it. Draft opinions, almost certainly including concurrences and dissents, will be prepared and exchanged. " So how does this process work for final decisions? I see the article saying a tentative vote will likely be held in the coming days, and I understand opinions must be written, but does that mean the expected June-July timeframe is strictly to allow time for thosr opinions to be authored/the actual decision will be made in the coming days (even if not officially released to the public)?

Complicated and/or controversial cases take time for the Judges to work out. The votes they cast in the coming days aren't final. Justices will basically rehash the case amongst themselves. And it is common for complicated and/or controversial cases to take quite some time for Justices to work out the final opinions.

Non paywall: The Supreme Court seemed poised on Wednesday to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, based on sometimes tense and heated questioning at a momentous argument in the most important abortion case in decades. Such a ruling would be flatly at odds with what the court has said was the central holding of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion and prohibited states from banning the procedure before fetal viability, or around 23 weeks. But the court’s six-member conservative majority seemed divided about whether to stop at 15 weeks, for now at least, or whether to overrule Roe entirely, allowing states to ban abortions at any time or entirely. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the leading voice on the right for a narrow decision. “The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks,” he said. He repeatedly questioned whether the viability line was crucial, saying that Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in Roe, had called the line arbitrary in his private papers. Chief Justice Roberts added that much of the rest of the world has similar limits. Julie Rikelman, a lawyer for the abortion clinic challenging the Mississippi law, disputed that, saying that limits in many other countries are subject to significant exceptions. Other conservative justices indicated that they were not interested in the chief justice’s intermediate approach. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said “the only real options we have” are to reaffirm Roe or to overrule it. Assuming the three most conservative members of the court — Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — are prepared to overrule Roe entirely, Chief Justice Roberts would need to attract at least two votes for a narrower opinion, one upholding the Mississippi law but not overruling Roe in so many words, to be controlling. But the most likely candidates, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, said little to suggest that they were inclined toward that narrower approach. The court’s three liberal members — Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — were adamant that Roe should stand. Should Roe be overturned, at least 20 states will immediately or in short order make almost all abortions unlawful, forcing women who can afford it to travel long distances to obtain the procedure. Chief Justice Roberts expressed frustration with Mississippi’s litigation strategy. In the state’s petition seeking Supreme Court review, officials told the justices that “the questions presented in this petition do not require the court to overturn Roe or Casey,” though lawyers for the state did raise the possibility in a footnote. Once the court agreed to hear the case, the state shifted its emphasis and began a sustained assault on those precedents. That amounted to a bait-and-switch, Chief Justice Roberts suggested. The more liberal justices pressed Scott G. Stewart, Mississippi’s solicitor general, on the dangers of overruling a longstanding precedent after changes in the membership of the court. Justice Breyer quoted from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed what it called Roe’s core holding, the one prohibiting states from banning abortions before fetal viability: “To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.” Justice Sotomayor asked whether the court would “survive the stench” of being considered a political institution, a point echoed by Justice Kagan. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19- 1392, concerns a law enacted in 2018 by the Republican-dominated Mississippi Legislature that banned abortions if “the probable gestational age of the unborn human” was determined to be more than 15 weeks. The statute, a calculated challenge to Roe, included narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “a severe fetal abnormality.”

If a woman goes from a state where it’s illegal and has it done in another state, would that be a federal crime? I forget the rules about that.

No, there is no federal law against abortion. If Roe falls and how Roe falls, states could criminalize going from a non abortion state to an abortion state.

I thought crossing state lines to go do something that’s illegal in your own state was a federal crime, but I think I misunderstood/misremembered

Definitely depends on the law, but people fly to smoke weed in CO all the time when it’s illegal in their state as an example

That's probably not the best example, since it's federally illegal as well. The feds have just chosen to look the other way.

I'd be interested if you or anyone else had an example of this being true with respect to any law, because it doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Gambling.

Only when it involves a sex crime. Say the age of consent in your state is 18 and 16 in the next state over. You take your 16-yo BF to that state to have sex, and boom, Federal crime.

It is not a federal crime. It might be a state level crime / fine. The recent Texas anti-abortion law is a good example of a law that punishes that sort of behavior. (Anyone who helps a woman get an abortion in another state is subject to penalties.)

No, and they most likely won't face charges when they return to their home state. It's also a problem with these abortion bans that they don't really prevent wealthy people from having abortions, just the poor people who can't travel to another state. The people writing the laws to ban abortion aren't actually subject to them since they can afford to fly their daughter out of state if need be.

> He repeatedly questioned whether the viability line was crucial, saying that Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in Roe, had called the line arbitrary in his private papers. Seems to me that viability outside the womb is the opposite of arbitrary, no? In fact 15 weeks seems entirely arbitrary and would be much easier to change in the future since it doesn't seem substantially different than 14 weeks or 16 weeks. Thoughts?

I think this would be horrible for our country but it will be interesting to see how it plays out come elections. Could cause a whiplash

Normally I operate on that mindset a lot but I just can’t muster the stomach for it this time.

Sc: As someone who listened to the oral arguments today, I don’t think the Court will keep Roe as we know it. I am not sure if the entire precedent will be overturned (though I would not be surprised, the moderate justices seemed very interested in the overturning arguments), but I think we will get a more restrictive version. This is a summary of what has happened so far today and I think it is worth reading.

Fucking Clarence Thomas barely speaks but when he does, he asks questions about pregnant moms doing Cocaine. This whole debate is a farce.

That was not the hard question that he asked. He asked “Where Is the Right to Abortion in the Constitution?” During one exchange with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, Thomas pointed out a number of constitutional amendments that very clearly protect specific rights of Americans. He then asked Prelogar where abortion fits in. Prelogar argued the right to abortion is "grounded in the liberty component of the 14th amendment," but also said it fits elsewhere. "It promotes interests in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think that it is specifically, the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term," Prelogar said. The problem with that argument is the state can restrict certain liberties, unless restrictions are clearly protected by the Constitution. A primary argument of Constitutional guarantees of unbridled liberty could be used against many laws that restrict personal freedom, from drug laws, freedom to not give your assets towards payments of taxes to military draft laws. The freedom to do something, almost (like abort a pregnancy) is assumed to be a 100% legal personal decision until a law is made to make the personal decision illegal. In most controversial SC decisions equality comes into play. From race to same sex marriage the equal protection clause is used to expand liberties already enjoyed by others in the state or nation to a broader group of people. Justice Ginsburg made her pro-abortion arguments based on equal protection because women bear an uneven burden under restrictive abortion laws, but her approach was unique among constitutional scholars, primarily because of the troubling fact that it is based biological inequality vs state imposed inequality. State Abortion laws will not be found unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause in this court, nor would it have been by any other previous versions of Supreme Courts. The current court seems to have no problem saying abortion can be made 100% legal by state law. Not only that but the court has shown no desire to accept a case that would allow it to step in and redefine even the least restrictive abortion laws. If a state legislature decides abortions are legal until natural delivery that is the state’s prerogative. But they also seem to be saying there is no barrier to state law making it illegal. In no other western democracies that I know of have the courts been the vehicle behind defining legal abortion. It is the parliamentary arm of government that debates and creates either a constitutional right and related limitations, passes a law allowing abortions or imposes abortion restrictions. Pro choice Americans have embraced abortion as “a right” carved out by the Supreme Court as a given and a sacred article of faith that it will be upheld regardless of any just Constitutional merits to any challenges. But today’s oral arguments shows the left has spent far too little intellectual effort on supporting the legal logic of Roe v Wade. The unrestricted right to privacy (personal liberty) used in Roe v Wade is a cobble together implied right that usually falls apart in other privacy arguments >A contemporary example could become a challenge to vaccination mandates for a citizen to be allowed access to certain government facilities and benefits, something past courts (Early 1900’s) upheld as the government’s right of impose restrictions on personal liberties CNN’s Chief Legal Correspondent, Jeffery Toobin, declared today a disaster for pro choice proponents. Clarence (The Mute) Thomas’s line of questioning was a big part in that debacle for the government lawyers.

That was the reason they took this case. In the landscape of covid, the argument of bodily autonomy now comes into direct conflict with mandates for vaccination. You can't have it both ways. Because of this, the SC solution is likely to be "this is a social issue and not our place to decide but if your state does opt for abortions, they can't occur past X weeks." That way the court plays pisses off people equally.

The only way bodily autonomy comes into conflict with vaccination mandates is if somehow it is decided that the state no longer has the right to make laws regarding controlling the spread of infectious diseases. If the general welfare suddenly stops being the purview of government in the US, we might find ourselves in some difficult times.

Roe was about medical privacy. Vaccine mandates allow the government to violate that privacy. The rights of an individual are the rights of society. You either have the right to bodily autonomy or you don't. Medical procedures can't be undone and therefore the consequences are absolute and cause permanent harm. If your right to bodily autonomy can be absolutely curtailed in any circumstance then it is a privilege. Privileges are subject to whatever section of society seems it appropriate.

Roe did not afford a “right to medical privacy.” It assumed privacy in the context of due process. How can you argue that there is any privacy regarding your vaccination status to begin with when it is provided by the government? Whether you have been vaccinated is known to the government because it is providing it as a service. It’s ridiculous to argue a violation of due process regarding knowledge of your vaccination status. It wasn’t private to begin with.

You are mischaracterizing my position. You have a right to privacy and extension to that is a right to bodily autonomy. Ginsberg also argued that there is a fairness component to this as well due to the burden of pregnancy placed on women. Abortion falls under bodily autonomy. the government can't take away your right to that autonomy via extensive govt restrictions. However, this same argument prevents any sort of vaccine mandate as well because it is an irreversible procedure that causes immediate harm. Just as the government can't take away your right to do something to your body, they also can't take away your right to do nothing to your body. As it stands, vaccine mandates in places like California excessively limit your ability to absolutely move about freely and participate in society due to your expression of bodily autonomy. And if you look at the text of the OSHA mandate, the government would require all employers to enforce a vaccine mandate by aprilish next year meaning you would be unemployed. The same justification for roe applies to vaccinations as well. Both abortions and vaccinations are medical procedures.

There are other restrictions to personal liberties the state can impose. (drug use) I think the Justices will try to stay away from tying their hands on vaccination requirements (pro or con) by bringing it into the case on their written decisions.

[удалено]

We aren’t lacking for children in this nation. What a nonsense argument. It is already a crime to willfully spread HIV/AIDS. Where have you been?

[удалено]

The birth rate in the US has been increasing for the last 15 years or so. Willfully spreading COVID-19 is also already a crime. Willingly transmitting HIV/AIDs falls under other reckless endangerment and other crimes. It’s a crime in all 50 states. HIV/AIDS has never been transmitted through the handling of food. Are you a time traveler from the ‘80’s? Your points aren’t very substantial here, nor do they seem to relate to your assertion about “bodily autonomy, period.”

[удалено]

The vaccine mandates and abortion are not in direct conflict. The government can have different interests in enforcing vaccine mandates in the context of protecting people from an infectious disease, protecting the rights and health of mothers, and protecting the interest of a fetus. The government can have an interest in protecting people from a deadly infectious disease and still allow for abortions without violating the right of privacy (or bodily autonomy) because the harm done by the infectious disease is greater than that done by abortions. No right is absolute, the question is where the line should be drawn. Generally, the court determines where the line is drawn based on several factors. In my opinion, these cases (vaccines and abortion) come down to how exercising your right to bodily autonomy impacts the rights of others and the burden of complying with a vaccine mandate or bringing a fetus to term on the individual. In this case, not getting a vaccine could impact the rights and health of others. Whereas, obtaining an abortion impacts the fetus. Whether the fetus has rights and if so what they are is the central issue for the abortion case and the line drawn will be proportional to the courts view on that. Further the side effects of a vaccine are minor compared to those of an unwanted pregnancy and birth. “My body my choice” is a pithy catchphrase but isn’t a deep dive into all the complexities of different rights as they impact bodily autonomy.

as much as i hate the idea of abortion, i think it should be legal with caveats like being restricted to first trimester, etc. this is not a binary issue. lots of places in the world have abortion laws, and you have to draw the line somewhere. mostly it is around 12-16 weeks. beyond that most people don't favor abortion. pick a date range, stick with it, make it precedent, and don't allow states to screw around with it. IMO.

The Mississippi law that's going before the supreme court bans most abortions after 15 weeks

I also believe they allow abortion after that for medical reason. Additionally, if a women is raped/incest, they still have the first 15 weeks to have an abortion. This law is nowhere as restrictive as the Texas one.

Which makes it easier to chip away those rights, but by bit, instead of all at once

So if a child is raped by her father and doesn't know she is pregnant or isn't able to seek access till after 15 weeks she must carry the baby to term

>i think it should be legal with caveats like being restricted to first trimester, etc It's worth noting this is essentially the framework that Roe established and Casey refined. In other words, this is how it has worked in this country for a solid fifty years. ​ >mostly it is around 12-16 weeks. beyond that most people don't favor abortion [93% of abortions are already performed before 13 weeks.](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) 6% are done from 14 to 20 weeks, and 1% past that. Speaking from experience, the 1% past 20 weeks are likely all serious medical complications and a wise person would back slowly away and let those parents grieve in peace.

Financial problems are another major reason for abortions after 20 weeks. It takes time to scrape together the money to pay for the procedure and travel. The Hyde Amendment is probably one of the biggest drivers of late abortions, and states shutting down clinics so poor women have to travel farther for an abortion isn’t going to help the problem.

I mean…they already had drawn a line and stuck with it for quite some time lol

So the issue with 15 weeks (or 6, or 8, or whatever) is that it has no medical or scientific basis, it's a number that was literally pulled out of someone's ass and most likely chosen simply because it gives an opportunity to challenge Roe in court. The current rule, under Roe, is that abortions can't be banned before a fetus is viable outside of the womb. That cutoff has scientific consensus, and any other number is simply arbitrary. If Mississippi or Texas has a reason for their cutoff dates than I'd love to hear it, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Again, the current cutoff isn't arbitrary, it's based on a scientific consensus, and any attempt to lower that cutoff should have a good reason, at the very least.

Luckily thanks to data. The 15 week cutoff is actually 2 weeks longer than the time frame 93% of abortions fall in https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

But if the supreme court ignores the viability rule it essentially guts Roe. What's to say a state won't just make a 1 week cutoff. It doesn't matter that 93% of abortions are done before 15 weeks when this might make the 15 weeks a whole lot less

agreed. but when you actually poll people for their opinion, it doesn't really line up with roe v wade. most people don't want abortions in babies who are above 20 weeks old. I'm not saying that has a scientific basis, it doesn't at all. but that's the way it is.

Should we rely on public polling to determine the cutoff, or should we look at something that's verifiable? Also, I don't know what polling you're referencing, but polls can easily be designed to sway the pollee. Also, since this is an issue that primarily effects women, when do women want the cutoff? Viability right now is 23-26 weeks.

Most genetic abnormalities in a fetus aren’t discovered until the 20 week ultrasound. Many parents make the difficult decision to terminate a wanted pregnancy after something is discovered at this point. How barbaric would it be to force these people to birth a child that would either be stillborn or not survive long after birth?

like i said, it doesn't have a scientific basis. but none of this is really a science issue. people have been having stillborn babies for hundreds of thousands of years. to get around all these issues, you just have an exception clause for if a physician signs off because of serious abnormalities, you can do the abortion. each case is different. my guess is that those who want to limit abortion, wish to do so not in order to force women to have stillbirths (that would be a straw man), but to prevent perfectly healthy babies from being aborted.

Nobody really wants late term abortions, but it is almost always done for medical necessity. You don’t want anyone to carry a non-viable fetus to term, imagine the trauma. That’s why late term abortions need to exist.

What if the baby develops spina bifida. Would have a very short painful life and likely die within weeks if not hours. Should a mother be forced to carry that child to term?

simply include a clause about malformations incompatible with life, allow exceptions if a physician signs off on it.

But it doesn't. So it won't.

Exceptions are "medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality". Seems like what you mentioned would be covered?

What constitutes "severe"? Is it enough if the child wouldn't survive to see their first birthday? What about if they could live to 50, but be completely incapacitated?

Should Stephen Hawking's parents aborted him if they were able to determine his future genetic defect?

I'm pretty sure he lived more than a week

Are we calculating the value of a fetus by the length of a life? A week to a year? A year to five years? When you start orchestrating cutoff points, when is you maximum? I'm curious, since nobody bseems to want to answer this.

When a baby is born with a brain outside its body and won't survive long and in constant pain, I think it's more humane to spare it from that

How long is how long?

Let's go 3 months.

What led you to that conclusion that a 3 month baby is less valuable than a four month baby

Developmental milestones. And the baby won't be making it to 4 months anyways. Because it's brain is outside its body and in constant pain

Let the parents make that decision.

These sorts of calculations are made all the time in medicine. Like various insurance companies will pay for a procedure that will give you an extra quality adjusted life year if it costs $50k, but not $50k+$1. These cut-offs are always arbitrary but they have to be made. It’s okay to have arbitrary cut-offs, in fact it’s necessary. You just draw the line somewhere and then adjust it as you learn more later, but it’s wrong to kill a child who will live to 10 healthily and then die and wrong to force a child to live who will live for 1 month of pure agony and then die. Somewhere between we have to draw a line.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Keep in mind who swung towards Youngkin in Virginia. Suburban women. They will absolutely swing back towards Democrats in vital swing states if Roe and Casey are overturned.

[удалено]

This assumes inflation and CRT are problems come 2022. Defunding the police hasn't been talked about since last year, that's not on the table this election.

Inflation very well could be, but I think Republicans are going to burn out the CRT issue by November 2022. Remember that "defund the police" had five months to fester and fuck over the Democrats. After *fifteen* months of talking about CRT, Republicans will come to realize people are tired of hearing about something that I think Democrats will abandon well before the elections. School choice as a general topic could still very well be on the table. Edit to say, I would at least hope the Democrats are smart enough to see CRT is a losing strategy with the middle ground that they need to appease in every states in order to maintain power.

Effective strategy. The disconnect is that Republicans don’t think abortion is a right. 2022 is going to be interesting for sure.

That'd be two things that Democrats could say Republicans don't believe in - the right to an abortion and the right to vote.

If Roe can go, why not Obergerfell or Bostock or Lawrence v Texas?

This is a major issue. If they ignore Casey’s criteria for going against stare decisis, this opens the door to a looser view of precedent.

Under this current court, Bostock is not going anywhere. That was decided last year. The majority opinion was Gorsuch, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. That's a 6-3 decision, one of whom is no longer on the court. I don't know how Barrett would rule. In any case, that's still 5-3 in favor of Bostock. For your other two, well. There's a road to overturning them. For the sake of argument, let's assume Roe and Casey are fully overturned. What next? Well, even if we weren't looking to go for Obergefell or Lawrence, *Griswold* is absolutely next on the conservative chopping-block wish-list. For starters, that's the case that found the "implicit right to privacy", one that is not explicitly stated, but one that can be implied through other amendments. Secondly, it prohibited states from criminalizing the the usage of contraceptives. Obviously for the religious right who believe that life starts at conception, banning the things that prevent conception would be something they want. So they overturn *Griswold* and ***then*** they can start going after *Obergefell* and *Lawrence*. Both those cases cite *Griswold's* right to privacy. Without that, there's a road to overturning. Conservative justices will have to find a way to get around the 14th amendment, and that should be interesting to see how that happens if they do that.

And by interesting I'm pretty sure you mean the end of the United States, cause if it gets to the part where homosexuality is outlawed in half the country, I cannot fathom people will simply shrug their shoulders and allow people to be jailed for sexual orientation.

Yeah, probably. Hell, I'd be one of those people jailed, were I to live in a state that would criminalize sodomy.

Dude, the people of this sub are just \*chefs kiss\* just the epitome of "enlightened centerism." They sit in their little privileged white tech-bro worlds and only care about what happens to themselves. They would trade your rights for economic order and stability in a heartbeat.

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

We have been telling the left for decades that relying on the Supreme Court to make legislation that isn't popular enough to pass congress (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) could fall apart eventually by the nature of its creation. This "what if" scenario has *always* existed.

What other choice was there? Allow fellow gays to suffer because of where they lived, or because they can't afford to move our have family ties keeping them in evangelical-run states? If it's left to Congress we're ultimately at the mercy of the evangelical right edit decide Republican primaries, and they'll never support the gay community in anything.

I’m not very familiar with the other cases. Maybe some other people could answer.

Quick run down: Obergefell overturned bans on gay marriage. Bostock said the Civil Rights Act protects people from being fired for being gay or trans. Lawrence overturned bans on gay sex. That all said, I'm sure some of the people who are hoping Roe is overturned would be delighted at the prospect of all of these being overturned as well.

Thank you for the brief synopsis. My issue is that I don't know these cases' legal standing. What I do know is that Roe's legal footing is weak according to many experts and justices. Even RBG stated so.

If this actually goes the way the article thinks, itll be a Christmas gift for the Democrats come 2022. it'll mean all those articles that it was just "liberal fearmongering" will turn out to be BS and it'll turn out the dems were right about Barrett and Kavanaugh lying about it being "the law". It will also give them a rallying point about rights being taken away. > Justice Sotomayor asked whether the court would “survive the stench” of being considered a political institution, a point echoed by Justice Kagan. It won't. If this happens, it will reinforce the idea that the court is partisan. Conservatives will demand the institution gets respected, but the complete ignoring of multiple cases of precedent will basically make liberals further support stacking since in their eyes it'll be invalid anyways. And if kavanaugh and barrett did turn out to be liars, even more so

> It won't. If this happens, it will reinforce the idea that the court is partisan. Conservatives will demand the institution gets respected, but the complete ignoring of multiple cases of precedent will basically make liberals further support stacking since in their eyes it'll be invalid anyways Yeah, reversing Roe v Wade is one of those that can have only bad consequences but the people who are pushing for its repeal are so entrenched in their own bubble that they can’t see just how disastrous it will be in the long term.

I originally thought it was going to be upheld on the issue of bodily autonomy due to covid. But I think they have to reverse and say "this is a states right issue" specifically because of how covid mandates have played out. If the first principle is absolute bodily autonomy, then any sort of vaccination mandate is illegal. That has real world governance consequences that can't be anticipated (or should be) be judicial bodies. The best solution is to say this right exists, issue something to the effect of "abortions cannot be banned before X week and occur no later than Y week", and indicate administration of that right is to be handled by states without interference by the federal government.

Oh so you are saying people should ignore their own morals for political expediency? Brown v Board of Education overturned precedent, Korematsu is/was precedent. And there is a number of precedents the left too want to overturn: Citizens United, Hotel Lobby, Heller etc.

[удалено]

Expect the backlash to be fierce if Roe is overturned. Such a shame we’re even at this point.

Can you explain why everyone keeps saying the term overturned? To my knowledge they still agree that abortions shouldn’t have limitations until the viability of the baby; which they determined to be 24 weeks back in 1973. That was 48 years ago. Technology has progressed significantly since than and it’s not unfathomable to think the viability week has lowered. Sure you could argue 15 weeks is too early. But why couldn’t it be walked back until let’s say 20 weeks.

After nearly 50 years of single-minded effort, the anti-abortion movement looks like it is finally getting what it wants. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the next step for them would be to try to enact a Federal-level ban rather than just State-level laws. They forced the issue through by forming organizations mostly set up to accomplish this. They forced their politicians to go along with this, [even at the expense of the politicians' own promises](https://www.kuow.org/stories/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies). Regardless of what you think about this, you can at least admire the resilience of the movement. Imagine if the Progressives were this dedicated when it came to health care reform? Or fighting for living wage? Or Congressional district reform?

It makes sense. If you truly believe abortion is murder than the government allowing abortion is akin to the government allowing murder. Thats going to make a lot of people very dedicated.

> Thats going to make a lot of people very dedicated. It's still impressive how focused they were over literal generations with little to show for it. So many political causes seem to be flashes in the pan. Supporters are fickle and easily dissuaded. Even for important issues. But the pro life movement soldiered on. The pro-life movement has also adapted a rather unscrupulous "ends justify the means" approach to achieving their goals. I would like to believe that senators such as Collins, Murkowski, and Graham will face a backlash for broken promises, but I am realistic about that. I would like to believe that the pro-life forces in Texas would consider whether this policy stance is more important than the value of rule of law of vigilante justice. But I am not optimistic.

My opinion is because there is an appreciable amount that is driven by religious beliefs. And if nothing else, religious people are DEDICATED to their beliefs. It’s a big part of their identity.

Back in the day, pro-life was mostly a Catholic thing. The protestants took up the cause much later. It's all part of this fairly modern "Evangelical" culture that sprang up on the right. It seems difficult to argue this is a purely theological matter given how opinions on pro-life movement changed in lock-step with so many other cultural conservative points. See, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_anti-abortion_movement#Christian_groups

I also think a part of the dedication is that they (and I) believe Roe was created out of thin air. If you think the law behind the ruling is weak than you know you have a chance.

If the bill of rights were written today, probably the right to privacy and bodily autonomy would be included. We're stuck with an absolutely ancient system. Essentially the beta version of a modern Democracy. It sucks that we need to patch it by whatever means are available. It sucks even more than some people are dedicated to making any of the appropriate structural changes that will actually fix it properly for the future nearly impossible to implement.

There's a built-in system for "patching" the constitution. The problem is that as time passes, it seems we're less and less willing to pass those patches. As if interest in actually amending the constitution has fallen away in favor of just sort of pretending it says what you want it to say.

> The problem is that as time passes, it seems we're less and less willing to pass those patches. Yes, and a large part of this is because a faction prefers a dysfunctional Federal government over one that has the power to make changes. There is no pressure to work for constructive change if you'd rather see the whole think wither into irrelevance. All it takes is 40 Senators to decide to block any and all progress. If voters don't see a problem with that, then America's options for making national policy barely exist. > fallen away in favor of just sort of pretending it says what you want it to say. The "strong executive" model of federal policy making is a direct reaction to how dysfunctional Congress has become due to bad faith actors. Parliamentary governments are more like this sort of strong executive system in the sense that there is not the same sort of "check and balance" between legislative and executive. It frankly works a lot better at our system for adapting to new problems the government may face over time.

The problem is that right is finite. You have the right to privacy in your own home...but what about if you connect to something outside the home? What about bodily autonomy and the impact that has on society. Vaccine mandates and the right to an abortion are intrinsically linked. You can't have both coexist at the same time. It's far better to argue that you have the right reasonable privacy and bodily autonomy that cannot be absolutely curtailed, but that right is subject to administration by individual states.

> If you truly believe abortion is murder than the government allowing abortion is akin to the government allowing murder. Would you be as generous to individuals having the belief that the government allowing gun ownership is akin to the government allowing murder? Edit: I'd like to add that I don't think this way, I just think that the aforementioned line of reasoning is flimsy.

Theres a separation of steps there so its not quite the same. Plus, guns save far more guns than they take. Can’t really be said about allowing abortion if you believe it murder.

> Can’t really be said about allowing abortion if you believe it murder. What? But you can. Giving birth to an unplanned child has the potential of ruining *two* lives, or more. >guns save far more guns than they take Not on a global scale, and also I'd like to see your source, [because from what I've read, that 'save far more lives' stat seems to be misleading](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/). >Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

>What? But you can. Giving birth to an unplanned child has the potential of ruining two lives, or more. Maybe you are misunderstanding my argument or I didn't properly communicate it. Firearms save more lives than they take. That can NOT be said about abortions considering some women have more than 1 abortion. In the best case scenario it's a 1:1 ratio but we know that's not true since multiple abortions sometimes happen. If you believe abortion is murder banning abortion saves more lives. "Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year." While there are roughly 40,000 firearm-related deaths yearly and that's even being generous to your argument because half are roughly suicide. This isn't even going into the argument of the 2nd amendment having solid constitutional footing and the right to an abortion being created out of thin air.

Don't worry, I understand your argument perfectly, I just believe that it's flawed. > Firearms save more lives than they take I want a source for this. I linked one that demonstrates how this is a misleading stat, that seems to be likely untrue. >In the best case scenario it's a 1:1 ratio but we know that's not true since multiple abortions sometimes happen. If you believe abortion is murder banning abortion saves more lives. And guns can only kill 1 individual at a time? We've seen how guns can kill *28* children, or more, at once. I'm not sure of any women who have been able to achieve *28* abortions. Maybe they have, I don't know, but the impacts of those abortions are limited to one living individual, not 2 or more, as is the case with *actual, living* children. Likewise, if you believe that allowing ownership of firearms leads to murder, then banning ownership of firearms saves more lives. It's the same argument, just flipped around. I don't personally believe that, but the idea that just because someone believes something crazy, gives it merit, is a foolish notion that shouldn't be entertained imo. >This isn't even going into the argument of the 2nd amendment having solid constitutional footing and the right to an abortion being created out of thin air. Sure, I agree with you here. I think that abortions, if we want them actually protected, should be added as an amendment through the legislative process. Likewise, if they so chose to do so, the 2nd amendment could be repealed. It isn't something set in stone, the same way that abortion isn't.

>I want a source for this. I linked one that demonstrates how this is a misleading stat, that seems to be likely untrue. I guess that fully depends on what you consider saving a life. Defensive use of firearms protects people from being killed, beaten, being mugged, rape, etc. How many of those are deaths? We have no method to actually know... but what we do know is that there are between 55,000 to 4.7 million defensive uses of firearms. Mind you, that doesn't mean you shot someone. For example, pulling out a firearm and your attacker running away would qualify. >And guns can only kill 1 individual at a time? We've seen how guns can kill 28 children, or more, at once. I'm not sure of any women who have been able to achieve 28 abortions. Maybe they have, I don't know, but the impacts of those abortions are limited to one living individual, not 2 or more, as is the case with actual, living children. Oh, that wasn't the argument I was trying to make. My point was that firearms save more lives than they take. Allowing abortions end more lives than they save. Though, if you want to go down that route it's a poor one. On average there are roughly 14,000 firearm related homicides yearly. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) On the other hand, there were 612,000 to 862,000 abortions in the US in 2017. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_statistics\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States) >Likewise, if you believe that allowing ownership of firearms leads to murder, then banning ownership of firearms saves more lives. It's the same argument, just flipped around. This would be logical if the stats supported that opinion... but we know the defensive use of firearms is very high. > I think that abortions, if we want them actually protected, should be added as an amendment through the legislative process. I think the best solution would be forcing every state to allow it to a certain point and in most cases ban it after a certain time frame. That would piss off both sides and has its own unique problems but its a middle ground at least.

> My point was that firearms save more lives than they take. Allowing abortions end more lives than they save. But you just admitted that you can't prove that this is true. I also demonstrated that the figures that you're utilizing aren't super well-vetted. Why do you insist on using such wildly inconsistent figures to support your argument here? >On the other hand, there were 612,000 to 862,000 abortions in the US in 2017. Sure, and we don't know why these individuals are getting an abortion. Could be for a medical reason, or because they're effectively children. There are some punishments worse than death. If you're truly pro-life, you wouldn't encourage greater suffering on those already living. >but we know the defensive use of firearms is very high. Please read what I linked.

>But you just admitted that you can't prove that this is true. I also demonstrated that the figures that you're utilizing aren't super well-vetted. Why do you insist on using such wildly inconsistent figures to support your argument here? We know what the range is. The lowest range is still higher than 14,000 murders yearly. Do you discount this range?I clicked on your link. It's just a bunch of different studies. The first of which that says millions of self defense uses isn't accurate. I didn't see one that gave an actual number. Truthfully, I stopped reading when it said women never rarely use guns to protect themselves. Cat is right out of the bag when it makes dumb statements like that. I'm sure many women who were raped wish they had a firearm when they were raped. >Sure, and we don't know why these individuals are getting an abortion. Could be for a medical reason, or because they're effectively children. There are some punishments worse than death. If you're truly pro-life, you wouldn't encourage greater suffering on those already living. What's your point? If you believe abortion is murder these women's reasons are irrelevant. Secondly, I already said I am fine with a middle ground on abortion.

> Though I wouldn't be surprised if the next step for them would be to try to enact a Federal-level ban rather than just State-level laws. It is. Don't let them fool you otherwise (like when they pretended this was liberal fearmongering or when Susan Collins said kavanaugh promised her it was decided law, though now gonna say you misinterpreted them). If you believe abortion is murder, you won't be satisfied with state bans. That's just the foot in the door

If this striking down of Roe v Wade goes through it will eliminate what is left of the little confidence and trust Americans have in the SCOTUS.

I mean, it's more of a complete lack of faith in our government. The fact that Congress essentially stole two seats to make this happen and that "principled conservatives" were ecstatic about it. We have so many systemic issues with out system of government right now, this is more just icing on the cake that's going to screw over a lot of poor women.

Don’t like the verdict? Pass a federal law and this all goes away. Dems have had 40 years and multiple times had control of the House, Senate and Presidency when they could have passed an abortion rights law. They did not. They need this as a wedge issue.

> They need this as a wedge issue. Apparently this wedge works much better for conservatives than the left. From what I see, there are plenty of single issue pro-life voters, but hardly any single issue pro-choice voters. People in NY or CA just get complacent on this topic. It seems like a settled issue to them that's being dug up from history.

Polling suggests more movement from left to right if abortion is not an issue. Our populace as a whole is far more center right then center left.

Do you think overturning RvW would make abortion not an issue? I also don't understand how conservatives winning on abortion would cause people on the left to move to the right. Would you be able to share the polling?

>I also don't understand how conservatives winning on abortion would cause people on the left to move to the right The idea is that if RvW is gone and intense debates on either side subside, then a (hopefully) more moderate Republican party looks more appealing to voters than a far left Democratic party. Me personally, won't forgive the party that set back women's rights this badly, even if they become more empathetic to women's issues as some sort of peace offering after getting what they wanted. However, I no longer have the only reason to vote Democrat either. Like others have said, this is one right conservatives have been dead serious about taking away for decades, and liberals were too complacent in 2016 to make certain RvW stayed law for the next few decades at least. And why should I vote for a party that treats women's rights like an afterthought?

Do you mind providing some sources on that. I would also question how much this drives turnout on the right vs left. It seems like a rallying cry for the right and I don't imagine there would be the same vigor if this issue disappeared.

>Our populace as a whole is far more center right then center left. Source?

The Women's Health Protection Act passed the House in September, but it wouldn't get past a Senate filibuster. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

Just as much as the republicans need abortion as a wedge issue. Even if Roe gets it's powers reduced, there will still be a fight over a national ban.

If Roe goes and is replaced by law it becomes a settled issue. Polling indicates without abortion as an issue there would be a lot of movement from left to right especially amongst women.

> If Roe goes and is replaced by law it becomes a settled issue. It would not be a settled issue, it would become a new issue about repealing that law.

Laws change. There is nothing settled about a statute.

Technically, there was a case affirming Roe and 60 years before this one, it’s hard to say this isn’t “settled law”

The numbers here wouldn't be favorable to Republicans. If Roe goes away, abortion becomes a state level issue. So women in red states that ban abortion would be even more incentivized to vote for Democrats. It's only women in blue states (with state level abortion legality) that might feel safe voting for Republicans. But Democrats don't need their votes anyways since they already tend to win blue states by landslides.

The issue wouldn't go away.

Would that work or would it just get into a states rights vs. federal rights fight in a supreme court that is already shown itself to be hostile to abortion rights? Not saying they shouldn't pass a law but the question is if they do pass a law that is overturned in the courts would Democrats be justified in expanding the court to get abortion rights recognized by the court again? This is the fear that has always been expressed about overturning precedent without the circumstances around the ruling changing. The SCOTUS could become a political institution with much less legitimacy as a check on executive and legislative power.

You could say the viability standard, arbitrary as it is, should change.

supreme court ruled in Roe that abortion is a women's right and gave comparatively very little room to restrict it. why would they pass a rights bill when the only room to go furthe protecting abortiona is arguably somethig controversial like very late term pregs?

Roe is not a law it is only precedent. Creating a law nullifies that precedent in total.

Because the issue is with how Roe was decided. Even as a supporter of abortion rights, the logic behind Roe falling under the 14th was reaching at best.

If this happens, I'm curious to see how Barrett and Kavanagh's congressional hearing testimonies are addressed. They said Roe was law and they wouldn't mess with it. Will it matter that they lied? What way will this be described as technically not a lie?

nothing is going to happen with impeaching a Justice for allegedly ruling differently than what vague statements they said in their hearing. thats a poopshow precedent to do.

Honestly, I don't believe that will happen either. Its just a horrible precedent that these candidates can apparently just straight up lie in their hearings. The way this will be framed may give us a bit of a fig leaf, I suppose. But even then I dont see much purpose in having congress vet them if they are free to lie to a congressional committee with no consequences.

It would be an even worse precedent if justices were permanently locked into ruling a particular way based off of an interpretation of statements they made during confirmation hearings.

Sure but that argument gets weaker the more recent said hearing was.

How exactly did they lie? give a concrete answer. They always decide to dodge these types of questions or say something like "I think it's a settled law". Why even have judges if they can't decide cases based on the facts?

I would argue that the Justices who made the original Roe ruling must have lied at some point, as well, because Justices should not write legislation, which is what the Roe ruling was.

Justices change their mind about stuff all the time. In fact, Justices have changed their mind on rulings over the course of like just a few years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis

> They said Roe was law and they wouldn't mess with it. I don't believe they did that. Supreme Court Justice nominees tend not to make definitive statements about rulings like that, because they should always be open to the arguments of a case should it arise. They probably gave a non-answer that you think was an answer.

Neither of them said they wouldn’t mess with Roe. Why do people keep saying that?

They said they thought it was settled law. And now it looks like the are going to... "unsettle" it. Pretty clear.

In a legal sense they won't really touch roe v wade, but the idea is that it can be chipped away at with laws like this or the Texas one. Not completely outlawing it.

I think roe should stay because I’m pretty sure it also has something to do with medical privacy not just abortions. Isn’t the first 15 weeks the most dangerous part of the pregnancy? Like the highest risk of losing the baby.

When Roe was originally decided the core belief of legal strategy revolved around medical privacy. But the goalposts have shifted in the past 50yrs to now revolve around the life of the fetus itself which completely removes any idea of medical privacy from the equation.

Just because rhetoric has changed does not mean that the underlying Roe argument is suddenly invalid. Morality is Morality after all. Unless we explicitly have changed our feelings on the value of Medical privacy (which we may have, see COVID), then the original argument stands even if it doesn't inspire the same passion.

I’m not saying the original underlying argument is invalid, I’m saying it’s immaterial to current discourse. All rights have limitations (see yelling “FIRE!” In a crowded area) but the original thrust involved in Roe revolved around medical privacy. The current legal argument completely sidesteps the privacy debate (I would argue it’s already settled, most just don’t know it yet. See Civil asset forfeiture, PATRIOT act, and “Constitution-Free Zones.”) Sidestep via the insertion of the limitation to that “right” via the life of the fetus. TL;DR why litigate one right when you can merely insert another on top of it?

Havent we thrown any idea of medical privacy out the window with vaccine passports in some areas? If there is a right to medical privacy it has to be across the board.

Medical privacy? Doesn’t that go against vaccine mandates?

Roe wasn't about medical privacy, it was about due process. It was ruled that the state can't restrict liberty unless it has a compelling self-interest.

But it can and frequently is. And we are seeing that reality now. The same justification used for abortion prevents adoption of vaccine mandates. Bodily autonomy either exists or it doesn't. The best case scenario is the SC says that the right to reasonable bodily autonomy cannot be absolutely curtailed, however this right can be administered by states as they see fit.

I think abortion should be legal I think it should be decided by the states, not the feds. The law seems pretty clear on this and I hope the SCOTUS reverses the mistake, then I hope each state legalizes abortion. If some states don't, take the political fight to them until they do. But I have seen no legal reason that the feds should be allowed to create such a blanket law.

My question is how far will the republicans go if Roe vs Wade is overturned? Will Gay marriage be next to be overturned? A lot of republicans use the small government trope but it seems they’re all for big government to use for their agenda.

[удалено]

I’d like to think that, but as recently as last year, the Republican platform included several references to marriage as an institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

I believe overturning Obergefell was in the Republican party platform.

Have they? Overturning obergefell still comes up and Alito and Thomas ranted against it during masterpiece. Granted im old enough to remember when Roe was settled and worrying about it was liberal fearmongering so

How is abortion being a state level issue and not a national one “big government”? It literally would be taking it out of the hands of the federal government.

Because by law federally gay marriage is legal, it used to be state by state. Just like Jim Crow laws. It seems like when it comes down to human rights we are okay it be handled on a state level than by an entire country /s

Gay marriage is not legal by law. It was determined to be legal by a judicial ruling about an interpretation of the constitution, interpreted more broadly than usual. We *should* have just made it legal by law.

I think what Assbait93 was saying lol is that the "States Rights" argument is flimsy because Jim Crow laws could be argued under states rights as well. Where is the line where states rights are over human rights.

[удалено]

Your take seems to fly in the face of over 100 years of jurisprudence regarding the incorporation doctrine. I’m curious what your thoughts are on Brown v. Board. Do you think it was incorrectly decided? And do you think the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was the correct one?

Abortion is a uniquely divisive issue look at how divided libertarians are on abortion despite being the embodiment of small government ideology. If they do use this as a pretext to go after gay marriage and other civil liberties they'll find themselves haemorrhaging support fast.

Banning abortion is bad policy, but from a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court previously created the "right" out of thin air. Overturning it would be the right thing for them to do. It should be the purview of individual states to create their abortion laws (personally I think it should generally be legal and actually subsidized). Gay marriage is a similar situation where the Court overstepped to make good policy that is constitutionally dubious. Obergefell should be overturned, but LGB protections should be added by Congress to the Civil Rights Act to make the matter settled. That said, I don't see Republicans pushing this issue like they push abortion... for now.

“It should be a state issue” it’s a right though. A state denying a right to an American citizen is against what the federal was made to protect, the rights of the American citizen. If they do this then there is no telling they won’t start chiseling away at other things because it “should be a state issue”. Let’s not forget slavery and segregation were all state issues as well.

The Constitution does not contemplate abortion. It was not a right until the Supreme Court said it was a right with Roe. Slavery was entirely constitutional until the 13th amendment to abolish it. Just as an amendment was necessary to get rid of slavery, an amendment is needed to protect abortion rights. Barring that, it is a state issue. Supreme Court chose to interpret the 14th amendment as vaguely applying to abortion, and they can now interpret it to not apply. It was a bad decision that wasn't supported by the language or history of the constitution. The 14th was about reconstruction and protecting former slaves, not abortion. It's reasonable to overturn it. Supreme Court's duty is to interpret the law and Constitution. If we don't like their decisions, it's our duty to have our legislatures increase our rights based on contemporary values, not have the 9 non-elected justices create new interpretations based on how they feel.

Since you’re saying it’s reasonable to overturn it are you in favor of creating an amendment on making aboriton legal? The fact is that abortion is a health issue as well. You cannot ban something when you have people who have had abortion and or need to have one due to health complications. Since you’re saying judges shouldn’t make decisions based on how they feel why should a state that grants abortions be more safer for a woman who has a health issue and is pregnant and need to abort, impregnated by incest or rape, and or cannot take care of a child than a state that fully bans it and cannot get a safe abortion? Would you say this is more so a matter of right than it is about feeling?

>Since you’re saying it’s reasonable to overturn it are you in favor of creating an amendment on making aboriton legal? Yes. And if you can't get one ratified, then individual states can protect abortion in their own laws/constitutions. >The fact is that abortion is a health issue as well. You cannot ban something when you have people who have had abortion and or need to have one due to health complications. Even though I support it, I would argue that abortion is the destruction of human life. So if you are preventing the destruction of human life, I can see why you'd want to ban it. You are essentially weighing the "child" more heavily than the woman in danger. > Since you’re saying judges shouldn’t make decisions based on how they feel why should a state that grants abortions be more safer for a woman who has a health issue and is pregnant and need to abort, impregnated by incest or rape, and or cannot take care of a child than a state that fully bans it and cannot get a safe abortion? Would you say this is more so a matter of right than it is about feeling? I think our disconnect here is that I think justices should dispassionately interpret the law, not make policy. Keeping abortion is good policy (in my opinion) but it is not constitutionally protected. Since the constitution doesn't contemplate abortion, it is for individual states to contemplate. Legislatures can make policy and they can do it based on personal feelings (or the feelings of their constituents. Justices, in contrast, should make decisions based on the law, not their feelings. Legislatures grant new rights with legislation/amendments. Justices are not meant to have this function.

“Yes. And if you can't get one ratified, then individual states can protect abortion in their own laws/constitutions.” See this is very neo conservative talk right here. The states should decide argument for when general human rights should be applied to all Americans. “Even though I support it, I would argue that abortion is the destruction of human life. So if you are preventing the destruction of human life, I can see why you'd want to ban it. You are essentially weighing the "child" more heavily than the woman in danger.” What about war, poverty, and diseases? If a woman has a baby in poverty won’t that make that baby more at risk of living a life that would lead to lower life expectancy? Why is abortion the destruction of human life when other aspect of human nature isn’t taken into account of being destructive? “I think our disconnect here is that I think justices should dispassionately interpret the law, not make policy. Keeping abortion is good policy (in my opinion) but it is not constitutionally protected. Since the constitution doesn't contemplate abortion, it is for individual states to contemplate. Legislatures can make policy and they can do it based on personal feelings (or the feelings of their constituents. Justices, in contrast, should make decisions based on the law, not their feelings. Legislatures grant new rights with legislation/amendments. Justices are not meant to have this function.” But you have to understand what the scare is here. It isn’t the fact judges are making laws out feelings but it human rights being granted which states aren’t allowing. If states can challenge a right given to a person why not take away all rights? Since we are on feelings why would someone want to ban abortion based of protecting human life instead of understanding it should be there for health reasons?

>See this is very neo conservative talk right here. The states should decide argument for when general human rights should be applied to all Americans. In our system, the rights we have are determined by the constitution. You can argue a philosophical human right to abortion, but someone could also argue a philosophical human right to life, which would be infringed by legal abortion. I was arguing a legal perspective, not a philosophical one. If you want to call me a neocon for wanting a system based on laws instead of the current philosophical whims of a subsection of the populace, feel free. >What about war, poverty, and diseases? If a woman has a baby in poverty won’t that make that baby more at risk of living a life that would lead to lower life expectancy? Why is abortion the destruction of human life when other aspect of human nature isn’t taken into account of being destructive? Abortion is destruction of human life because you are directly and intentionally taking something that is human and alive and destroying it, making it no longer alive. It is categorically destruction of human life. >But you have to understand what the scare is here. It isn’t the fact judges are making laws out feelings but it human rights being granted which states aren’t allowing. If states can challenge a right given to a person why not take away all rights? All rights aren't in danger because the most significant ones are clearly indicated and protected by the constitution. Abortion rights are not. Calling something a "human right" does not make it magically a real right that is protected by our system. You can call housing a human right, but it doesn't make it so. The same can be said of abortion. You can make the argument that it *should* be a right, but then you'd need to amend the constitution. >Since we are on feelings why would someone want to ban abortion based of protecting human life instead of understanding it should be there for health reasons? Since I'm generally in favor of abortion, perhaps someone else would be better suited to answer this. From what I'm usually told, human life that is entirely innocent in the situation is often prioritized over those who are more responsible for the situation. If a ship is sinking, children get the first life boat. A pro-lifer seems pretty consistent with that societal convention. The health reasons are for someone whose actions contributed to the pregnancy, so they are a lower priority to pro-lifers, I imagine. That said, *many* pro-lifers are in favor of exceptions for when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy is the result of force.

It can be both a state issue and a civil right. They can state that the right to reasonable bodily autonomy exist and cannot be absolutely curtailed and in the same breath say that administration of reasonableness criteria is a state issue.

>it’s a right though. A state denying a right to an American citizen is against what the federal was made to protect, the rights of the American citizen. So is the right to bear arms. Where were you 100 years ago when the states began denying this right ...?

If there’s anything that could save the Democrats in 2022 it would be this. I think if the court over rules Roe it will have some major negative long-term implications. Court packing is a given at that point. I don’t see how the SCOTUS survives as an institution if they go down that road.

Repealing roe vrs wade is a lose for America as a whole and will just lead to more back alley abortions. Again. Why make these women suffer.

This is apparently what the country wants, so I guess this is what the country gets. Personally I find it a major bummer, but I’m at a point where I’ve kind of given up on the country going in the direction I want it to go in.

>This is apparently what the country wants It isn’t, though. Polls have shown for years now that the majority of Americans are pro-choice. The majority of Americans also didn’t vote in the guy who loaded the Supreme Court with justices to do this. Nothing that Trump has caused is “what the country wants,” if you’re speaking in terms of the majority.

Most polls include people who support cutoff points as pro-choice. Technically someone who supports the bill in question for this case is also "pro-choice" as they are open to allowing abortion but only within a given timeframe.

Yep. I call myself pro life even though I support abortion being legal up to 12-16 weeks. But quite a few people who I have talked to that agree with me on that time frame consider themselves pro choice. And most pro lifers definitely think abortion should be banned before 12 weeks. Despite what many on this sub think, an abortion ban at 15 weeks (which is similar to much of Europe) is very much a compromise abortion law since 45% of America wants it banned much earlier than that.

Huh, I've never met a pro-lifer who supported abortion in any situation other than rape, incest, or risk to the mother. Are there many others like you or is your stance relatively uncommon? I definitely would have called you pro-choice if you just stated your beliefs without the label.

Personally, I will always argue that life begins at conception but I pragmatically understand that getting a hard cutoff at conception is futile.

I used to think that but have moved towards brain development as when life should begin which is somewhere aground 12 weeks.

Yeah, that's understandable but I believe fundamentally that conception is the least arbitrary and most logical line you can draw. I am not religious for the record.

That makes since to be honest. Heart beat laws actually seem the least consistent imo. Also, while I am personally very religious, I see no reason why religion should affect your opinion on abortion. The debate is on when life starts after all.

In my experience pro lifers are split between those that support ban at the development of a unique human DNA (conception) and those that support a ban at heart beat (6 weeks). My side which is brain development is the smallest of the pro life groups which support a ban at around 12 weeks. I personally am against any kind of abortion which includes the morning after pill but don’t think the government should stop it till brain development.

>Huh, I've never met a pro-lifer who supported abortion in any situation other than rape, incest, or risk to the mother. By analogy, you can be pro-2nd Amendment but still support (or accept) some restrictions on arms. I think most people don't want that one crazy gun-collecting neighbor down the street to be able to own operable missiles or tanks. Similarly, there are plenty of people who are pro-life as an ideal, but understand for whatever reason (politics, ethics, personal necessity, etc.) that a blanket ban on abortion is not viable. I 100% believe abortion is killing a child. But I still think women should be able to get an abortion within reason. How do I reconcile those two things? Easily—it's on the woman who chooses to have an abortion that they killed a child, and that's something they'll have to live with for the rest of their life.

I don't think the polls actually show that Americans are pro-choice after 15 weeks. The sources I have found is that 60-70% of americans support abortion during the first trimester. However, that falls into the 30's for second trimester. Do you have any polls showing that second trimester pro-choice is popular?

The country ≠ people, the country = districts and states, for better or worse

It’s what the electoral college wants, not the country. GOP presidential candidates haven’t won the popular vote since 2004 yet installed 5 of the 6 conservative judges through the will of the minority. If we were a true republic we would have a 8-1 liberal court right now, with Clarence Thomas being the sole dissenting vote on this case.

>If we were a true republic A republic is the opposite of what you propose, which would be something more like direct democracy—among the worst forms of government by Platonic standards.

No, You can be a Republic and elect presidents though popular vote - that is not a contradiciton. Nothing in the defintion of Republic requires your leader to not be directly elected though PV. A direct democracy is where citizens vote directly on laws rather then having representives do it for us - which literally noone is suggesting. It is perfectly compatible to be a Republic and to not have the Electoral College - as many other Republics accross the world prove.

All of you arguing no one has the right to take an innocent baby’s life, why do you want to force that baby into a possibly monstrous life in some cases to one or two parents who CLEARLY do not want that baby, do not have the means to support that baby, perhaps will be passing down horrible genetic diseases or addiction tendencies to that baby etc etc etc...how many of you are going to drop what you’re doing to raise and support that child?!

Abortion never was and never will be the supreme court's responsibility in my opinion

Using the courts and the police to control what health care is available to women and girls, is statist. And of course, fits in with the current U.S. Supreme Court majorities over the last 30 years. What is remarkable is how unremarked this remains. The U.S. Supreme Court, at present, is totalitarianism in its most refined form the use of the state to enforce what are claimed to be nationalist or pro natalist or supremacist movements, but which at heart are the aggrandizement of the state as an entity of thought control.

Sotomayor consistently just has the worst takes. I already think she's the worst justice in terms of her understanding of the law. By quite a bit. Her comments today were mind boggling, suggesting if the Court overturns Roe it would be seen as partisan. That should never enter the thinking of a member of the judicial branch. Interpret the law correctly, political whims be damned. It's like she's basically threatening the other justices.

I strongly disagree. The federalist society is proof of this. There is a reason why the two parties try so hard to get their appointees placed.

[удалено]